Issue Navigator

Volume 10 No. 02
Earn CME
Accepted Papers
Classifieds







Review Articles

Oral Appliance Treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Update

http://dx.doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3460

Kate Sutherland, Ph.D.1,2; Olivier M. Vanderveken, M.D., Ph.D.3,4; Hiroko Tsuda, Ph.D.5; Marie Marklund, Ph.D.6; Frederic Gagnadoux, M.D., Ph.D.7,8,9; Clete A. Kushida, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.S.M.10; Peter A. Cistulli, M.D., Ph.D.1,2
1Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2NHMRC Centre for Integrated Research and Understanding of Sleep (CIRUS), University of Sydney and Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia; 3Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium; 4Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; 5General Oral Care, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; 6Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Umea University, Umea Sweden; 7LUNAM University, Angers, France; 8Department of Respiratory Diseases, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France; 9INSERM U1063, Angers, France; 10Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Oral appliances (OA) have emerged as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. The most commonly used OA reduces upper airway collapse by advancing the mandible (OAm). There is a strong evidence base demonstrating OAm improve OSA in the majority of patients, including some with more severe disease. However OAm are not efficacious for all, with approximately one-third of patients experiencing no therapeutic benefit. OAm are generally well tolerated, although short-term adverse effects during acclimatization are common. Long-term dental changes do occur, but these are for the most part subclinical and do not preclude continued use. Patients often prefer OAm to gold-standard CPAP treatment. Head-to-head trials confirm CPAP is superior in reducing OSA parameters on polysomnography; however, this greater efficacy does not necessarily translate into better health outcomes in clinical practice. Comparable effectiveness of OAm and CPAP has been attributed to higher reported nightly use of OAm, suggesting that inferiority in reducing apneic events may be counteracted by greater treatment adherence. Recently, significant advances in commercially available OAm technologies have been made. Remotely controlled mandibular positioners have the potential to identify treatment responders and the level of therapeutic advancement required in single night titration polysomnography. Objective monitoring of OAm adherence using small embedded temperature sensing data loggers is now available and will enhance clinical practice and research. These technologies will further enhance efficacy and effectiveness of OAm treatment for OSA.

Citation:

Sutherland K; Vanderveken OM; Tsuda H; Marklund M; Gagnadoux F; Kushida CA; Cistulli PA; on behalf of the ORANGE-Registry. Oral appliance treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: an update. J Clin Sleep Med 2014;10(2):215-227.




Please login to continue reading the full article

Subscribers to JCSM get full access to current and past issues of the JCSM.

Login to JCSM

Not a subscriber?

Join the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and receive a subscription to JCSM with your membership